The concern that the Labour and Green parties had was that the bill would eliminate an avenue of recourse should the contractor feel that they were actually an employee and that they therefore deserve the specific protections and benefits of being an employee (not to say that there aren't a different set of benefits for being a contractor, as so eloquently shared by others on these boards).

We've gone round and round on this issue: some on these boards think it's ludicrous to suggest that employees have protections or benefits that make it preferred over contractor status, therefore making the opposition sound irrelevant; while others on these boards think that this avenue of recourse is a valuable way for a worker to seek redress if they are wronged.

Some facts regardless of personal opinion:

1. The bill makes the law less ambiguous: if you're a contractor your a contractor darn it, and if you're an employee you're an employee. 2. The bill does this by disabling people that sign contracts as contractors to later use litigation to claim employee status.

-This was that the Employment Relations Act would be amended to make sure a worker engaged on an independent contract will not be able to go to court and claim employee rights and conditions. (TORN main page)